Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:30 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:18 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:30 am I think the pillars must have said something to Paul about these things, since he discusses them in 1 Cor. 7-10

obviously you are assuming an original Paul. The question if Galatians precedes or postdates Acts is independent from the question if Galatians is genuine or not. I have started this thread since I have already assumed that Galatians is a forgery.

Let me ask you this first (and sorry if I've missed you saying this before). Do you think 1 Corinthians (or any other Pauline letter) post-dates Acts too? I got my wires crossed when I started my response to you and went from thinking about Galatians to 1 Corinthians, but if you do think the latter post-dates Acts, then it could be relevant.

I have seen that all the radical critics place only Galatians after Acts. Obviously some minor interpolations in other letters podtdate even Galatians.

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:30 pm The only thing I might add (if we do stick to only Galatians being post-Acts) is why would someone who knew Acts make a letter that makes Paul look out of step with Jewish Christian leaders?

Acts is already anti-marcionite hence the author of Acts has already corrupted *Ev by making it Luke. The next reaction by Marcion is 100% expected: Galatians.

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:30 pm Your answer upthread is that "the author of Galatians could be only Marcion or a forerunner of Marcion," but if Galatians post-dates Acts, then what does it matter what Marcion (or his forerunner) thought? He'd just be a guy who didn't like the Jewish origin of Christianity and made some changes to it. And that's fine and well for him, but it would be a later form of Christianity than the one in Acts.

your question ignores the fact that Marcion was in action before, during and after Acts. "Before" by using *Ev, "during" by using the Apostolikon and "after" by writing Galatians. Do you realize how how much giant was Marcion?

rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:36 pm And not only those questions John, but why also would such a version of Galatians end up in the orthodox collection? Its one thing to postulate that Marcion revised Galatians in order to counter the narrative from Acts. It is quite another to suppose that Marcion's anti-orthodox revisions ended up in the orthodox collection....

Galatians was sanitized in a catholic sense by adding the first visit of Paul to Jerusalem and adding "again" in 2:1 (remember that Tertullian didn't read "again" in his version of 2:1). In this way Paul is more rapid to pay homage to Peter and James. What is more catholic than this rapidity ?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:32 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:54 amThe strongest evidence that Galatians postdates Acts of the Apostles

If Galatians postdates the Act of the Apostles and presumably at least one of the Gospels: why is Galatians silent on the Gospel/historical Jesus?

in the second century the question is not even raised. The silence becomes a problem and a difficulty (if the epistles were placed) within the years that could be lived by Jesus if he hadn't been crucified.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:32 pm So isn't the silence on historical details in Galatians an indication that it doesn't postdate Acts, assuming you believe it was written by someone who knew historical/Gospel details?

as I have written, if Galatians is from the second century, the reference to a "different gospel" is by need a reference to a written rival gospel. And Galatians is focused on the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. It is the thing that disturbed him. The Pillar John is John Mark of Acts.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 8:58 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:32 pmIf Galatians postdates the Act of the Apostles and presumably at least one of the Gospels: why is Galatians silent on the Gospel/historical Jesus?

in the second century the question is not even raised. The silence becomes a problem and a difficulty (if the epistles were placed) within the years that could be lived by Jesus if he hadn't been crucified.

Why does it become a problem for 50 CE, but not a problem for (say) 150 CE? Wouldn't a writer who believed in a Gospel Jesus have written a Galatians with lots of historical Jesus references to events and sayings? Especially if that Jesus was thought to have interacted with Peter and the other apostles?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:34 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 8:58 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:32 pmIf Galatians postdates the Act of the Apostles and presumably at least one of the Gospels: why is Galatians silent on the Gospel/historical Jesus?

in the second century the question is not even raised. The silence becomes a problem and a difficulty (if the epistles were placed) within the years that could be lived by Jesus if he hadn't been crucified.

Why does it become a problem for 50 CE, but not a problem for (say) 150 CE? Wouldn't a writer who believed in a Gospel Jesus have written a Galatians with lots of historical Jesus references to events and sayings? Especially if that Jesus was thought to have interacted with Peter and the other apostles?

the answer should be obvious.

In the years 30-50 the memory of a historical Jesus should be still enough vivid, if he existed.

I think that 100 years of distance should give the right to eclipse a presumed founder, to the same his adorers, beyond any level of recognizability.

Only 30 or 40 years are not sufficient to allow a such right. Not even by dream.

In addition: the epistles, when placed in the second century, are not true epistles but theological treatises.

In addition: the epistles, when placed in the second century, are not true epistles but theological treatises

Yes and by dating them later they can be seen as a 'new teaching' within an existing movement
where the historical details don't matter. Too unlikely? That's exactly what the gnostic texts do. They must have known all about, say, the gospel of Thomas but mostly ignore it.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 8:42 pm

rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:36 pm And not only those questions John, but why also would such a version of Galatians end up in the orthodox collection? Its one thing to postulate that Marcion revised Galatians in order to counter the narrative from Acts. It is quite another to suppose that Marcion's anti-orthodox revisions ended up in the orthodox collection....

Galatians was sanitized in a catholic sense by adding the first visit of Paul to Jerusalem and adding "again" in 2:1 (remember that Tertullian didn't read "again" in his version of 2:1). In this way Paul is more rapid to pay homage to Peter and James. What is more catholic than this rapidity ?

Your claim is that Paul's travel to Arabia in Galatians is an anti-orthodox revision, inserted in response to Acts of the Apostles, or that the entirety of the letter to the Galatians is a Marcionite post-Acts forgery.

If either of those things were true. Then why on earth is this a part of the orthodox Pauline letter collection? How/why would the orthodox have incorporated these anti-orthodox alterations at this late stage?

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:26 am

If either of those things were true. Then why on earth is this a part of the orthodox Pauline letter collection? How/why would the orthodox have incorporated these anti-orthodox alterations at this late stage?

The question seems strange to me. It is clear that the proto-catholics co-opted everythig that could be co-optable. And the marcionite Galatians was one. In this way the same Marcionites could become Catholics, by pointing out under their own eyes the errors of their leader by using the his same text. Where is the novelty?